5%

If a civil engineer started building a bridge meant to carry a couple hundred cars a day, then said there was a 5% chance the bridge might collapse, they would be fired on the spot and the bridge torn down the next day.

If your bank offered you a new, high-interest savings account, but warned you there was a 5% chance all the money in it might vanish without warning and without hope of recovery, you would refuse the offer (and probably switch banks).

If a car manufacturer started making a new type of engine, and claimed it was so powerful their cars had a 5% chance of exploding above highway speeds, there would be an immediate recall–even though driving that fast is against the law.

If Microsoft pushed out an update to Windows that they claimed would make everyone’s computer run twice as fast, but with a 5% chance it would fry the CPU and erase everything on the hard drive, there would be a lawsuit at minimum–even if no one’s computers actually got fried.

If a biotech lab got a government contract to engineer a viral weapon, and they claimed that the virus they were developing was so potent there was a 5% chance it would escape containment and wipe out the surrounding city, there would be a criminal investigation–even if it turned out they’d made the whole thing up!

So someone please explain to me: when executives and researchers at leading AI companies say there’s a 5-15% chance their products might wipe out the human race, why does anyone think that shrugging and saying “They’re probably just saying that for the hype” is a sane, level-headed response??